Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1887-06-16
RAILROAD MEN INTERESTED.
Hearing by the Interstate COmmission
THE COMPLAINT AGAINST THE PENNSYLVANIA AND
NEW YORK AND HUDSON RIVER COMPANIES.

NEW YORK AND HUDSON RIVER COMPANIES.
The Interstate Commission to-day granted a
hearing In the complaint OF the Chicago and Alton
Railroad Company against the Pennsylvania Rail-
road Railroad Company and the New York Central
and Hudson River Railroad, alleging a violation
on the part OF these two roads of the third section
OF the Interstate law. The question really at issue
ing commissions to the officers and employees OF
another road for the procurement OF passenger
business
A GROUP OF RAILROAD MEN.
The hearing attracted quite number OF rail-
ROAD men. Among those present were President
Geo. B. Roberts and Mr.. Jno Scott, chief counsel
OF the Pennsylvania company; General Manager
Cnappei, general Ticket Agent Charlton, and At
torneys Oates and Brown, OF the Chicago and
Alton; MT. Frank LOOm1s, counsel, and General
ts' raSsenger agent Agent Monette OF the New York Cen
Central, and other attorneys and officers OF rail-
roads.
Mr.. BROWNS STATEMENT OF THE GRIEVANCE.
Mr.. Brown, representing the complainant, the
Chicago and Alton Railroad, opened the case with
statement OF the grievance. He was not ready
to proceed with the case against the New York
Central, so that against the PENNSYLVANIA was
taken up. Mr. Brown said the charges were that
the Pennsylvania company had refused to accord
to the Chicago and Alton equal privileges and ad-
vantageS with other roads in the matter OF paSSen
ger traffic; that it had subjected the Chicago and
to 1t all reasonable facilities for the interchange OF
passenger traffic. His complaint was that the
pennsylvania sold through tickets over its line to
Kansas City via the Chicago, Burlington and
Quincy road, but refused TO self tickets over the
Chicago and Alton. In so doing he contended
that
THE PENNSYLVANIA VIOLATED TIE INTERSTATE
LAW.
He maintained that the law was passed for the
oeneht OF the public, and not for the convenience
OF any corporation; that under the law it was the
duty OF the Commission to see that equal facilities
were onered to all roads; that it was not the pro-
vince OF any road to determine what facilities II
would grant or deny to another.
ACtne conclusion OF Mr.. Browns statement Mr.
Scout or the pennsylvania asked II he should state
would first hear the TESTIMONY OF the complainant
Chairman Cooley said he did not see that there
was any question of fact at issue. 1t was not
worth While for the Commission to take testimony
Wnen une question submitted, as he understood it.
was one OF principle and not Of fact.
THE ONLY QUESTION AT ISSUE.
MI. Scott aSSented to this, adding that the only
question at issue was the right Of one railroad
company to brlbe the officers and agents Of another
company by paying them commissions.
Mr.. Brown, in his argument, held that the Ques.
t1on OF commissions was one or the internal policy
OF rallroad and the Commission had nothing to
do with it; that whether the road saw fit to pay
salaries or commissions was not matter for the
Commission to inquire into.
Mr.. Scott took issue with this point. saying the
COMMISSION question was one OF principle tnvOlv
Ing the morals OF railroad employees and the good
OF the public. He denied that the Chicago and
Alton had right to tempt the officers Of the
PENNSYLVANIA by paying them commissions to send
tTalnc over that road. MIR. Scott said that be-
fore the interstate law went into effect, large
majority OF the railroads had determined
TO ABANDON THE COMMISSION SYSTEM
as one that worked much evil. 1t required no ar
gument, he said, to show that the agent in New
York selling through tickets to Kansas City OF
other competitive points would exert himself in
favor of the road that paid him the largest CON-
mission, and instances had been known wherein
the agent divided his commission with the pas
Senger in order to influence him to buy ticket
pany had abandoned the commission system and
IL issued circular inviting all roads agree
Ing with 1t to assent to its abandonment.
Very many OF them asSented, but sixteen held out
for the Old system. Among these was the Chicago
and Alton, the complainant and the Pennsylvania
refuses to exchange passenger business with the
Alton road unless 1t shall agree that 1t will not go
into the Offices OF the PENNSYLVANIA Co. and tempt
its agents
Mr.. Scott said the Pennsylvania had notified its
Officers and employees that it would discharge them
notice the Chicago and Alton claims that it has a
legal right To offer these agents and employees q
mOneyed Commission; ''to tempt them to do
wrong," he added, MIR. Scott denied any such right,
vicious system should be kept up or broken
down. 1t was system that went to the very
bottom OF railroad management, he said.
COMPLAINTS OF THE DRESSED BEEF MEN.
Albert H. Veeder and Campbell custer, attor-
neys for Swift CO. and Armour & Co., OF Chicago,
respectively, have presented petition to the In
terstate Commerce Commission, complaining
against unjust discrimination and excessive
charges at the hands OF the Baltimore and Ohio,
Chicago and Grand Trunk Indianapolis and st.
Louis, Lake Shore and Michigan Southern, Chicago,
st. Louis and PittSburg PfItSburg and Fort Wayne,
and Michigan Central Railroad COmDanieS